Episode 2941 CWSA 08/28/25

Canteen jugger flask, a vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine.

End of the day thing makes everything better.

It's called the simultaneous sip.

It happens now.

Go.

Oh, that was really good.

There we go.

Wait, everything's working.

Yeah.

Well, did you hear about the Florida man who uh stopped the burglar while he was in his Batman pajamas?

Now, what that burglar was doing in that man's Batman pajamas?

I don't know.

No, it wasn't the burglar.

It was the man who stopped him, who had the Batman pajamas.

And the best part about it is that when asked uh about the Batman pajamas, he said it gave me the confidence I needed.

Now, that is a great answer.

I don't know if the man wearing the Batman pajamas had any kind of, you know, mental issues, but I hope he was just a normal person who likes Batman.

And then we got a chance to to go all Batman on the burglary he did.

Uh because I gave him the confidence he needed.

Well, I immediately ordered myself some Batman pajamas because although I wouldn't wear them every night to bed, what if you heard a noise downstairs?

Well, I would put on my Batman pajamas just to go downstairs because if you're a burglar and you see the homeowner come down in Batman pajamas, you know he's going to attack.

You know you you know you've got a fight coming, so you might as well get out of the house.

Well, apparently the GDP has been revised and now it's 3.3, which is really healthy.

That's a that's a pretty good GDP.

So, good news there.

However, Fortune magazine reports that uh there's a noticeable drop in traffic at restaurants and shops and malls.

I have noticed that too.

Have you noticed that?

And it makes sense because people are feeling their their budgets are constrained.

And what is the first thing you do if your budget is constrained?

You stop eating out.

That's like number one.

It's the first thing you stop doing.

And shopping for entertainment.

You definitely wouldn't do that.

So, I feel as though people are really going to have to try hard to uh reduce their food budget.

And I think restaurants are going to have a some uh tough years ahead.

That's my guess.

Even if the economy is good.

It's just that food is ridiculous.

The cost of food.

Well, the middle-aged according to the economists, the middle-aged people are no longer the most unhappy.

That has uh that honor has gone to the young.

So, young people, according to new surveys, are the least happy.

So, middle-aged people, you're winning.

I would guess that is 50% is economic because they feel like they can't succeed if they're young.

And about half of that is loneliness and inability to, you know, hook up with somebody.

So, yeah, I can see it.

There's definitely if you change people's economic uh situation and their access to sex, they are going to be the least happy group.

So at least the middle-aged people could have some, you know, middle-aged sex and uh they might have a little bit of money compared to the young.

Well, RFK Jr.

made a bunch of news and the first part is that uh uh they're going to add nutrition education to premed programs across the country.

I don't know if they're making it mandatory um or if they're just making it available, but uh you probably know that doctors will go through medical school without being trained in nutrition, which is just mind-blowing.

Not trained in nutrition.

What?

But will that work?

Um, in my lifetime, all the science about nutrition has been fake.

Do we believe?

Do you believe that after 300 300,000 years of civilization where people didn't know much about nutrition, do you believe that you were lucky enough to be born in the exact era that we figured out nutrition?

Well, it certainly didn't happen when I was young, but did it happen recently?

I thought it happened when I was young.

Do you think that we're going to find out that absolutely everything we believe about nutrition is wrong?

Maybe, because we found that out every other time in all of human history.

We've never been right about nutrition.

But now we're right.

We finally got the right answer.

I don't know.

So, I think it's probably a good idea to teach as much as we know, but I'll bet you a lot of our nutrition science is still crap.

Well, apparently Bill Gates is going to discontinue funding something called the Arabella Group, which uh some big Democratleaning organization.

And uh I don't know much about the Arabella group, but I do know that uh Democrats their their entire structure, which we've learned in the past couple years, is this uh hugely complicated set of, you know, NOS's and charities and you know, packs and groups.

So, tons of groups and if you have enough groups and they're all working together towards some common goal, such as Democrats being in charge, um they can hide all kinds of money because it's kind of clever that uh you can give money to a charity knowing that the charity is then going to give your money to some kind of, you know, politician.

So, that's a pretty clever way to hide your money and what you're doing.

It makes me wonder because I did hear that Bill Gates has met with Trump a couple of times.

And it seems to me that Bill Gates would have lots of things that he really needs the government to do in order for Bill Gates to do what he wants to do.

In other words, there might be regulations that prevent his investments in in nuclear power.

Could be lots of things he needs the government to do.

Do you believe that Trump would have said, "Sure, tell me what you need for me and I'll go do it." Does that sound like Trump?

Or is Trump the kind who would say, "So, what is it you need?" Okay.

So, if I do that for you, what are you gonna do for me?

I've got an idea.

And he talks to his staff and they say, "Tell him thath you'll do what he wants if if uh if he stops funding the Arabella group." That might have happened.

Now, I have no information that would suggest it did, but it's hard for me to imagine that Gates would go to the White House unless there was something he needed or wanted, you know, something specific.

And I can't imagine any scenario in which Trump would just give it to him as opposed to saying, you know what, there's something you could do for me.

Maybe this is it.

Or it could be that this is all part of the big money people saying the Democrats are broken and giving money to them just doesn't make any sense at all.

You know, the whole thing is collapsing.

So, it might be that Gates just thought it was a waste of money and maybe he was looking for a way to stop doing it anyway.

So, that maybe agreed to give up something he wanted to give up anyway.

I don't know.

Maybe.

I'm just speculating.

All right.

Uh, apparently the House Republicans are moving to create a quote comprehensive crime bill.

Now, if you've been watching the news and opinion people, you know that they've been saying, "Hey, you know, this Washington DC surge by the feds to uh take on crime.

um that seems to be working.

But what we really need is maybe some kind of comprehensive crime bill so that u for example it might fund a bunch of more cops for cities across America, something like that.

They haven't figured out what that comprehensive crime bill would be.

It's comprehensive, so it would be, you know, might something about cash bail, something about funding cops, I suppose.

Um, but what I love about this is that I kept seeing was it uh uh Harold Ford Jr.

who kept saying almost every day on the five on Fox News uh saying that the Democrats should try to be proactive and do something useful about crime instead of acting like maybe they're in favor of crime more than they are crime prevention.

and he kept saying, you know, they should propose a comprehensive crime bill.

Well, it looks like the Republicans just took that away from him by being the ones who are initiating the crime bill.

Now, of course, the Democrats would have trouble getting anything approved, but at least it would look like they were doing something.

You know, they could say, "Well, we don't agree with this federal takeover of Washington DC's police, but we are working on this crime bill.

Look how look how smart we are.

If if we were in power, you'd have this crime bill, and you'd like it." But no, Republicans are going to take that completely away from them.

Will a comprehensive crime bill be popular?

probably at least 60%.

I don't know if it's an 8020, but yeah, I think it'll do fine with the public.

Well, you probably know there was another shooting yesterday and I wasn't going to talk about it because the two topics that I try to avoid are anything with, you know, individual crime like a mass shooting and anything about trans.

Those are two topics I generally try to avoid.

It's only because the trans topic is just everybody saying the same three things.

There's nothing to add really.

And uh you know the mass shooting things, they all start to look alike and then you say all the same things.

It's like uh something about trans and then people will say something about their hormones.

Elon Musk did.

Um he goes uh this is Elon Musk.

Violent crimes per capita by transidentified individuals is 10 times higher than the overall population.

Large doses of artificially administered hormones are driving them to extreme violence and murder.

These extreme hormone treatments should be withdrawn by the FDA.

Now the first question is is that per capita data correct?

Is it true that, you know, if you adjust for how many there are that the trans people who have a 10 times higher uh odds of violent crime?

Um, remember my rule is I don't trust any crime data.

Don't trust any war data.

Don't trust any economic data.

Yeah, maybe, but I I wouldn't automatically think that that was true.

But anecdotally it looks true.

Anyway, um and I don't know if I don't know if we've proven that the uh artificially administered hormones are part of what's making them do what they do.

Um but it's a popular opinion.

A lot of people are have that same opinion.

I don't know if they're right.

So, we're going to talk about all the same boring things.

uh what's up with trans and you know gun laws and how to use guns and why didn't he why didn't his parents know that this was going to come and then there's going to be the conversation about prescribed drugs because I don't know if he was on any but the obvious question is were you on any anti-depression drugs that may also be implicated in causing people to be violent and then it was a Christian school so We'll talk about Christianity being under attack.

There there's nothing I can add to that, right?

The the entire conversation is so scripted in advance that there's just nothing to add.

Yeah.

Everybody's going to say one of the, you know, eight things that people say about this sort of thing, which unfortunately happens somewhat regularly.

Um, so you don't need me to say all the usual stuff, but um there is a new bluntness happening.

I don't know if you've noticed, but there's a as wokeness is is trying to be uh put back in a box.

People are being a lot more blunt about uh race and trans and everything else.

Um, Robbie Starbucks was recently asked in an interview, "Aren't there some people who genuinely believe that they were born in the wrong body?" And Robbie says, "Yes, but there's also schizophrenic people who believe they're Batman." H, there's Batman again.

And think they can fly off the Empire State Building.

Pretending their delusion is true makes you evil, not virtuous.

Um, yeah.

And then uh Robbie on a expost says, "Today is a good day to remind people that there's nothing kind or virtuous about validating a delusion that leads to a dangerous mental spiral." Now, am I wrong to say that you couldn't really say that in public just a few years ago?

Now, you know, I I have a lot of empathy for people who are in that trans situation.

Whatever they're going through, it sounds tough.

So, you know, I I feel like uh empathy is perfectly appropriate.

But I do agree with the idea that we are not obligated to join somebody's um preferred view of reality.

the the whole idea that you can, you know, transition is a view of reality and you're not really obligated to join it and you're not really obligated to make happy talk as if you do agree with it or you or you do enter that version of reality.

And I'm not going to make an opinion of who's right or who's wrong in this case.

I'm just going to say you're not really obligated to join somebody's reality.

If you're sure that it's just an imaginary structure in their head, you are not obligated.

Well, you know, I've uh talked quite a bit before about trying to create a uh an agent uh that would look like me, like a clone of me, and would survive me and, you know, go on forever as my AI version of me.

Well, apparently that's a growing industry.

They're called deadbots, AI dead bots.

And a deadbot would be a bot or an agent or an AI entity that uh represents somebody who's passed away.

And apparently this is like a real thing now and they're, you know, their companies getting into it and managing your digital assets and stuff like that.

So the the digital life the digital afterlife industry, it's an actual thing.

um is expected to be like a really big industry.

H um I'm not aware of any company that can do this.

I know there are a lot of companies that can do parts of it.

There are companies that can make something that looks and talks just like you, but I don't believe there's any company that can make something that that looks and talks like you and doesn't hallucinate.

And I don't think that you could even make one with offtheshelf apps anyway that would even, you know, reliably look at a file you provided for some facts you wanted to get right all the time.

I don't think the technology is there.

So I don't know if this uh industry will really take off unless people are happy looking at their dead loved ones saying, you know, crap that never happened in the real world.

I mean, that would be weird.

Well, apparently the I think the White House was asking Nvidia for a share of the revenue of chips that the White House would allow them to sell to China, which would not be their best ones because that would be too dangerous to let China have their best AI chips.

But, uh, Nvidia is putting up a fight and I guess they they're saying that, uh, they'll they'll fight any, uh, government action to try to get a revenue share.

So, this is one of those cases where the government can blackmail a company, but I don't think it's like some other cases where the government is just being helpful and get something in return, you know, like keeping them from becoming bankrupt in something, they get something in return.

I I feel like it's different if you just say, "Oh, well, I'm the only one that can approve this, but all they're doing is approving something." Do you get 15% of revenue for just that particular kind of business?

uh just cuz you approved it when approving it is your job cuz the government it's their job to approve things or disapprove things right so if they just do their job of approving a thing why would they get 15% revenue so I could see why Nvidia would fight that I'll bet they can afford some really good lawyers So, how many of you have had the following experience?

You mentioned something.

You were having a conversation and you said something about I don't know, I'll just make something up.

bonsai trees and then you then you see that all your advertisements and all your devices have turned to you know are you interested in a bonsai tree and you say to yourself ah my technology is listening to me and it's modified the algorithm because it knows I want a bonsai tree now you've all had that experience right probably every one of you you've had that experience well there's another experience I want to see if any of you have had.

How many of you have had the experience where you were thinking really hard about a thing, but you never wrote it down and you never once even whispered it out loud and then your social media delivers something on that exact topic?

Have you had that weird experience yet?

Let me tell you mine.

Uh, so yesterday I was craving a certain food from a certain restaurant and I was thinking to myself, you know what?

One of the things I love about this restaurant is that they deliver their food in these nice uh plastic hard plastic containers.

And so I don't like it when it comes in cardboard or something, you know, some kind of paper product because I feel like the food and the paper have merged by the time you get it.

you, you know, you're reading paper.

But the hard plastic ones to me that seemed like a safe bet.

So all day long, I was thinking, God, I can't wait for dinner.

And this is unusual for me.

I usually don't have, you know, dinner cravings.

And I'm thinking, I can't wait to get that that food that uh was so delicious before.

I've got to get it.

And then I go on social media and there's a video from some American doctor saying that the most dangerous thing you could ever do is eat something in a a a black plastic container.

Specifically, a black plastic container.

That's literally what I was think like craving all day long is a thing coming in a black plastic container.

And apparently it's pretty bad.

Uh, black plastic is made from recycled electronics such as old televisions, computers, and other electronic waste.

So, allegedly, the black plastic contains flame retardant chemicals.

Uh, there just all kinds of chemicals, and you're eating it.

Now, how many of you have had that experience where the news serves up exactly exactly what you were thinking and it wasn't even like a normal thing you're thinking?

Like, how much time have you ever spent thinking about the awesomeness of black plastic food containers?

I actually did that yesterday.

I actually almost posted that if if your food comes in a a black plastic container, you you know that you'd be happier if you got Door Dash.

I I can't believe that that exact thing came into my feed at that exact time.

So, if we live in a simulation, the way you steer it is by what you're thinking about the most.

One of my theories about why affirmations work, which is just, you know, speculative, is that uh reality is not what you think.

You know, it's more of a simulation.

And the way that you can uh change the simulation is by what you're thinking about in the most dedicated way.

Maybe just thinking about those damn plastic containers changed reality until something was presented to me on that topic.

Maybe.

So, that's all part of why affirmations might work.

Maybe.

Well, here's another one.

Um, according to Canadian Affairs, I guess that's the publication.

Um, there's a senator in Canada who wants alcohol to have warning labels on it because, as the headline says, alcohol is poison.

So, Canada might label alcohol as poison.

He may be not using that word, but that's the uh the sense of the story about it is that alcohol is poison.

Now, if you're new to me, you don't know that I've been saying for quite a number of years, alcohol is poison.

It's a refrain that helped a lot of people quit drinking.

They just have to hear those words, alcohol is poison.

And it's based on the idea that human brains are really like AI and we're just programmed by the words that are most frequently repeated in our heads.

So if you say, "Hm, alcohol is a beverage.

I sure would like to have a beverage." You're going to do a lot more beverage drinking than you're going to be doing poison drinking.

So, if it seems like, well, that couldn't possibly work cuz all you did is call it a name, say everybody knows what alcohol is.

The fact that you're calling it a poison, how's that going to help me stop drinking?

And the answer is because that's all it takes.

The word that you most associate with it will reprogram you.

So, if every time you think of it or someone offers it to you, you say, "No thanks.

Alcohol is poison." Most of you, not all of you, but most of you that would be enough to never have another drink again.

It works because I hear all the time from people who used it successfully.

You'll probably see a few in the comments.

Um, and apparently Gen Z, as you know, is uh not drinking nearly as much, but that as in past generations, but uh that's also worldwide.

So, Germany is having a problem because, you know, they got a big beer industry there and the young people are turning away from beer and alcohol in general.

Sure enough, now only 38% of men in Germany under 25 drink at least once a week.

Um, it used to be 55% a generation earlier and it was 85% in the mid70s.

In the mid70s in Germany, 85% of the population had a drink at least once a week.

85%.

And now that's down to 38% with men under 25.

That's a that's a big change.

Wow.

Um, if you're worried about AI um affecting your privacy, well, I got a story for you.

A fairly open AI says it scans user conversations with its AI and uh can report some of them to the police.

according to an article in futurism.

Now, the things they would report would be the obvious things like if somebody um was asking how to end their own life, they might report that so the person could get help.

or if they were saying something like, you know, how to hurt people or, I don't know, make a nuclear bomb or create a poison or something like that that uh, you know, obviously is subjective.

But if uh, AI spots that sort of thing, it surfaces it to some humans and the humans decide whether or not that should be turned over to law enforcement.

to which I say that would really mean the AI is listening to everything you say and is using a filter to judge whether you should be getting a contact from law enforcement.

um that would really change the things I I'm willing to use AI for because I always thought one of the great advantages of AI is that it wouldn't be censored in any way and that I could ask all of those band questions.

That doesn't mean I'm gonna do something.

But sometimes you're just curious, you know, you're just curious about a domain that, you know, would be very bad if you were to take that action, but sometimes you just wonder about it.

And that I guess you'll get turned into the police if you wonder about the wrong things while you're in the presence of the AI.

And it might not even be something that you asked the AI.

It might be just something you heard.

You know, if you add it in voice mode accidentally and you and you said something on another topic to another person, it could just overhear it and then next thing you know, knock knock.

So that's pretty creepy.

I'm not sure they should not do that.

I mean, I I don't know how to I don't know how to judge that one.

Well, as you know, uh, Trump fired Lisa Cook, one of the Fed governors, because she's accused quite credibly, and I don't believe she's denied it, that she did some, uh, mortgage fraud when she was a little bit younger.

And, uh, she claimed two homes as her primary residence to get better rates, I guess, and that's illegal.

So, she's fired, but I think she's going to fight it in court.

Um, and uh I saw a post by Eric Dohy talking about how the experts were imagining that if he fired one of the Fed governors, it would cause all kinds of chaos in the market and that'd be bad for investors.

Well, the stock market went up.

Now, it didn't go up because of that.

I think it went up because there's a recognition that her job is completely unimportant.

Now, I could be totally wrong about that, but like I said yesterday when I was joking about it, what exactly does a Fed governor do?

And if suddenly one of them stopped doing it, do you think you'd even notice?

We don't even know what they do.

It's hard for me to get worried that there might be one less of them.

Oh no, we might have one fewer Fed governor than we had before.

Well, that will certainly change what?

Anything.

So, I guess the markets were smart.

The the funniest thing I I'm I'm starting to think is to imagine that the public will uh get really active and worked up about anything.

I don't think that's a thing.

I think the only thing that anybody gets worked up about uh or artificial where there's somebody funding, you know, a protest, but if nobody's funding a protest, things like this just don't happen.

You know, things like people going, "Oh, no, he's firing a Fed governor.

I'll have to remove all my stock investments." It just doesn't happen.

In the real world, people just look at the news and shrug.

They just go on with their lives.

I I think only in the social media world do you imagine that this is going to cause some big reaction with the public.

And not really.

It's just one of a million things I had to process today.

Well, Trump uh quite cleverly, the administration is looking to take over Washington DC's DC Union Station.

You know, where you grab a train, I guess.

Um New York Post is talking about this and it used to be, you know, sort of the jewel of DC, people say, but now it's too dangerous.

And uh if they take it over, I guess they can, you know, remove all the danger.

Um I think people are going to love that, don't you?

So I would say it's, you know, another home run by the Trump administration, simply identifying something that you're guaranteed to get people on your your side.

How would you like it if we made that place that you all go to on a regular basis?

How about if we made it safe?

Yes, please.

Yes.

How about yes?

Um, even the mayor of DC is uh I won't say she's pro.

Trump, but she thanked him for surging uh all this resources into her city and reducing crime.

So, you know, there was some question.

At first, she seemed positive about it and then she seemed negative about it.

Now, she's back to some version of positive about it.

Um, I feel like probably she's she's wrestling with the fact that she knows she wants it and she knows it's good.

You know, the federal surging of law enforcement and uh but the Democrats are probably pestering her saying, "You can't say that.

Whatever you do, don't say it worked.

Don't." And then she's thinking, you know, I'm just speculating.

I don't know.

Then I imagine her thinking, "Uh, everybody knows this worked.

Everybody knows it worked.

And you're asking me to go in public and say, "Oh, this is a terrible mistake.

We like the crime." I'm not going to do that.

So, I have a I if that's what happened, and it feels like that's what happened.

I don't know if if she's just rebelling against the stupidity of claiming something obvious didn't happen.

Well, I like it.

So, good for you if that's what's happening.

Well, uh, we're hearing a little bit more about John Bolton.

As you know, his house got raided and he was accused of doing some bad things with classified information.

But now we hear that the reason that we know this information was classified and that he was involved is that he used a uh unclassified email system to send some of it to someone close to him and apparently he was hacked or it was detected by a foreign country um a hostile foreign country and I guess we were hacking the hostile foreign country.

So, somebody was watching John Bolton's email, but but somebody else on our team, maybe in another country, was uh monitoring the people who were monitoring him somehow.

And so now we know that uh the information was at least seen by a hostile foreign country.

This is reported in the New York Times, which doesn't make it true, but you know, it's a big media entity.

So, here's my question.

Isn't the person who leaked this story to the New York Times just as bad as Bolton?

I can't believe that there's a leak about the leaker because the New York Times should not know that there was a hostile foreign country.

that is the is the reason that we know about this.

They shouldn't know that, right?

So, whoever leaked the story about the leaker is as bad as a leaker.

I mean, either way, it's pretty bad.

Well, here's something I thought I would never see.

Uh Trump is turning on George and Alex Soros.

Um, I'm going to just read what he said in True Social, but I didn't expect this.

So, Trump says this.

He goes, "George Soros and his wonderful radical left son should be charged with RICO because of their support of violent protests and much more all throughout the United States.

We're not going to allow these lunatics to rip apart America anymore.

Never giving it so much as a chance to breathe and be free." Soros and his group of psychopaths have caused great damage to our country.

That includes his crazy West Coast friends.

Be careful.

We're watching you.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

he always says.

Um so related to that, the Gateway Pundit is reporting that uh Representative uh Luna um had demanded earlier this year that Congress subpoena uh the Soros organization and uh the probe was around whether the agency um had done something to expedite his acquisition of a whole bunch of radio stations, 220 radio stations.

So, you know, somebody like Soros is always going to be uh suspect.

Well, what do you imagine they would discover if they started indicting um Soros?

What would happen if through legal means the government got access to all these Soros organization emails for the past, I don't know, seven years or something?

What kind of things would they find out?

And would there be crimes involved?

So, I don't know that there's really a RICO.

Um it it does seem organized but it seems organized in sort of a common political billionaire way.

He can give money to anybody he wants.

And if those people have decided to give that money that he gave them to somebody specific and he knew about it, is that a crime?

Maybe you don't like it, but is that a crime?

So I guess I would have to hear what crime they think he's done.

Um, but I do think that uh having George Soros have that much control over the country is obviously bad.

So the fact that uh Trump is pushing back on it all seems good to me.

I just don't know if he has any levers for that.

We'll find out.

Well, did you know that that Fed governor Lisa Cook, the one that got fired, and Leticia James and Hunter Biden, did you know they're all using the same lawyer?

at the moment.

It doesn't mean anything.

Just a coincidence.

But it does make me wonder, h Fed Governor Leticia James and Hunter Biden, is it possible that there is one billionaire who's funding the lawyer and trying to protect, you know, all good Democrats?

And is it possible that that's why they all have the same lawyer?

Because there's one lawyer who works with one billionaire and the billionaire says, "All right, we can't have Trump, you know, abusing all of our fine Democrats.

So, you're going to be their lawyer.

I'll pay you." Maybe there's a new drug coming out of China via the cartels the usual way that is way stronger than fentinyl and you can't stop it with Narcan.

So it would be therefore way more dangerous than fentinyl.

It's already here, so it's not hypothetical.

And it sounds like the Chinese producers just keep finding ways to keep doing something like fentinel or worse.

Um, and they're just going to keep doing it.

So there there's nothing we could do legally.

They'll just say, "Well, if that's illegal, what about this?" So it's called uh nazines.

N I t a z nazines.

And they're not even included in routine drug tests.

So if you did a drug test and a person is too new, it wouldn't even show up.

So um that's bad.

Well, Governor Nuomo is ratcheting up his rhetoric and he said at some political event, he said, "I'm absolutely convinced that there won't be an election in 2028." And what he means is that uh he believes that Trump will not leave office and he's getting really animated about it.

And by animated I mean jazz hands.

That will never be.

We'll never see an election in 20 28.

Jazz hands.

Anyway, um I feel like that has now crossed over into dangerous rhetoric because, you know, it does seem to me that the Democrats got the memo to stop saying Hitler, Hitler, Hitler, but they're just changing the words.

They're not changing the the message that the Republicans are like a mortal danger to, you know, the republic.

And this I am absolutely convinced there won't be an election in 2028.

Just look at what he's doing.

Look at what he's doing.

That's pretty dangerous stuff, Nuome.

And uh I really have a problem with the Democrats rhetoric that gets people into a dangerous headset.

And this is definitely it.

I mean, when he talks like that, it guarantees that if you're a Trump supporter, you can't be invited to the neighborhood, you know, block party.

It just guarantees it because nobody wants you on, you know, to socialize with you if you're going to be supporting what Newsome says is this terrible dictator who's going to ruin our democracy.

So, it's a kind of rhetoric that just destroys the country.

I I don't know that is there a Republican version of this.

You know, we we do talk about if Mum Dami gets in, he's he's going to ruin New York City.

But does that sound like a cult of violence?

It doesn't, does it?

It's more like a oh, this is going to be economically devastating.

Could be really bad.

But when you say that he's not going to leave the office and you guarantee it, like you're not even talking speculatively, you're just guaranteeing it.

He will not leave office and therefore you'll try to become a dictator.

That feels like a call to violence, doesn't it?

You know, I don't recommend any violence, but it feels like it.

Well, according to Newsmax, the there's a government uh oversight committee that's going to look at Wikipedia and check it for bias.

Uh do you think they'll find any?

Uh so James Comr, Republican and and Representative Nancy Mace are working on that.

Of course there's bias.

Of course there is.

There is really any doubt about that.

So, I don't know what they're going to do about it.

Um, and I guess they're worried also that some of the bias might be coming from foreign entities pretending to be editors.

So, we'll see.

Well, apparently the DNC, the Democratic National Committee, uh, they've got their annual meeting and they were meeting in Minnesota and, uh, Victor Davis Hansen is writing about this.

I saw it in the postmillennial.

Um, so they've been addressing their policy platform and what do you think that they decided to do now that their existing platform the one that they had been pushing uh once they realized that that completely destroyed the Democrat party um so obviously when they meet they said oh we can't do any of this again because it destroyed our entire party.

So is that what happened?

Did they meet and say, "We've got to really change everything because we really just destroyed everything that we hold dear." Nope.

They doubled down.

Yep.

They doubled down.

Uh apparently uh Attorney General Keith Ellison got big applause when he said, "Uh, we are not going to scapegoat our transgender community." And there Bill Owen of Tennessee is going hard at DEI in a in a good way.

He said DEI is the very foundation of the Christian church.

Really?

DEI is the foundation of the Christian church.

I don't remember the sermon on the mount where Jesus said, "Whatever you do, don't hire those white guys." But did I miss that that page in the Bible?

the part where discriminating against white men was highly recommended.

No, I don't believe DEI is the basis of Christianity.

No, thank you.

Anyway, uh it appears that Democrats have learned exactly nothing.

Not a thing.

I I feel like the problem is that you can only be an honest Democrat if there's no other Democrat in the room with you.

Like if you're just writing on your blog, you can say, "Oh, these Democrats need to try harder." You know, I'm a Democrat.

We need to try harder.

But you can't do it if there's a crowd in front of you because there'd be too many people in the crowd who would turn on you.

You just couldn't do it.

You'd get booed.

So, they don't have a chance.

Um, apparently some activist judge in Utah is ordering the state to redraw the congressional map that would take one away from the GOP.

So, it's sort of a technical argument about, you know, who can do what with redistricting, but uh looks like the order will take one away from the GOP.

So the uh GOP majority in the House is looks like it's going to go down by one and it's already razor thin.

That might that might make a difference.

All right.

Well, uh as I mentioned, RFK Jr.

is saying, I guess he said on an interview today, that uh they're getting very close to revealing the true causes of autism.

Now, I don't know if they're going to claim they found all the true causes.

I I don't know if that's the claim.

Uh might be weaker than that.

We'll see.

And uh that there will be regular regulatory action about those causes of autism.

And uh this is what RFK said.

He Junior said he said this is a crisis.

Uh there is not a single cause.

So if you thought he was going to say, oh, it's those childhood vaccinations, probably not because he says it's not a single cause.

He says there are many uh aggregation of causes.

We're now developing sufficient evidence to ask for regulatory action on some of those or recommendations.

So we're really going to find out something radical and interesting.

I assume that the reason he has some certainty about some things but not others is that there's data that looks credible about some of this stuff.

So what do you think?

How much of it do you think will be vaccinations and how much of it do you think will be diet and how much of it will be pollutants?

I don't know.

I I don't think you could uh make a good guess on this at all.

It could really be a surprise.

It really could.

So, we'll see.

Um and apparently there's other drama at the CDC.

So, the director, Susan Monarez, uh has been ousted by RFK Jr.

um because she was pushing for the COVID vaccine.

Now, I don't understand that story because my understanding is that Secretary Kennedy has okayed more of the COVID vaccine.

So, I'm trying to I'm trying to fit these two stories together because they appear to be opposites.

So, I don't know which what is true.

I do think it's true that the director is ousted.

Um, I do think it's true that she was procoid vaccines, but let me tell you what uh Kennedy posted about his own accomplishments.

All right, so this is part of the same story.

So Kennedy told us that he promised us four things.

Uh, one to end COVID vaccine mandates.

Now ending the mandate.

I didn't even know there was a mandate.

Did you?

What mandate?

Was there a mandate for school children?

Still, I wasn't even aware there was a mandate, so I don't even know what he's talking about.

But he said he would end COVID vaccine mandates, and apparently he has.

Um, he said he would keep vaccines available to people who want them, especially the vulnerable.

Now, if he's keeping the vaccines available to people who want them, wouldn't that suggest that he does not have definitive data that they're dangerous to um some part of the population?

I guess how in the world is that possible that he doesn't have data that would suggest he should cancel the co vaccines?

Do you think it's coming or that he's still studying it or do you believe that the data on all things CO is unreliable?

Because that's where I've been for a long time.

Yeah.

I don't know if you could say they're safe or not safe.

The only thing you could say for sure is I wouldn't trust any of the data.

No matter which way it pointed, I wouldn't trust any of it.

No matter what it said.

So, I'm a little confused on that.

Um and he said that he would uh demand placeboc control trials from companies um which apparently he has.

Now that doesn't mean that there are no things that had placeboc controlled trials already.

There were things so apparently he likes those things.

But I will be the uh if you don't know this, those randomized controlled placebo trials, that doesn't mean it's true, you know that, right?

Because the way you can fake those is by what data you decide is good enough to be in your study.

So there there's always this filter where you go, well, you know, the first two weeks of the data, uh, we collected a little bit differently, so why don't we take that out?

Yeah, we we'll just take out the first two weeks and then suddenly the data, you know, points in the opposite direction.

So there are ways that even the finest of controlled trials could be completely fraudulent.

That that's a real thing that happens.

And he said he promised to end the emergency.

What was the emergency?

I guess it was an emergency classification that allowed them to do the vaccine mandates.

So he got rid of that.

So, I don't know what mandates there were.

Un unless he's talking about school children.

That is that the only one or were there some mandates for maybe government people?

Maybe the military.

I don't think there were any.

There were no mandates for the military still.

Were there?

Or maybe he's taking credit for getting rid of them.

Um, but the FDA has now issued marketing authorization for the COVID shots for those who are at higher risk.

So, how do you how do you square in your mind that RFK Jr.

is the most famous vaccine skeptic we know?

Not just the COVID shots, but vaccine skeptic in general.

He's the most famous vaccine skeptic and he's in charge of looking at all the data and deciding if the COVID vaccine is too dangerous to justify whatever benefits you might get from it, if any.

And at this point, he does not seem poised to ban it.

Does that mean that he hasn't finished looking at it?

Or does that mean that he looked at it and he's satisfied that the data is sufficiently good that it's useful for some classes of people who are higher risk?

Wouldn't that wouldn't that blow your mind?

It looks like it looks like he must think the data suggests that it's better to take it than not take it for some categories of people.

Now, he does he does say that you should only do it, you know, if you're if you've your doctor says to do it.

So, he's not saying that you should just go to the drugstore and get it.

I I feel like he's saying, but only if your doctor says you should get it.

So, it's some acknowledgment that there's an extra risk involved, but maybe there's some category of people he believes the data supports getting it.

I don't know.

Um, apparently in Michigan there were teachers who were required to take a test to grade their levels of whiteness.

Wall Street Apes was talking about this on X.

So there was a public school teacher who had been there for 31 years and she quit because she was unwilling to stand in a circle to rate her level of whiteness.

Um, and I guess the problem was that the black students were struggling in their schools.

And so they wanted to figure out how their whiteness was affecting that.

Um, and the things that they thought would uh affect their level of whiteness was uh how many people they referred for discipline and you know whether or not that was a balanced number.

And uh she said she had a higher percentage of uh black students that were referred for discipline.

So that made her more white.

And uh let's see.

and also the lateness.

So if if she marked the black kids late, uh that would be extra whiteness.

And she said, uh I was told to decrease the number of detentions that were issued for a certain race, obviously black.

They showed up late because culturally it's acceptable for them.

Now, isn't that the racist thing?

Imagine being in a training class where the class is told that black people are allowed to be late because it's culturally acceptable to them.

Isn't that racist?

Or do I not know what racist is?

I mean, the point of saying that they're they're more likely to be late because they're black.

That's racist, right?

Am I am I hallucinating now?

Like, this is just crazy.

Anyway, um, so I don't know what that story is about.

Probably was interesting at one point.

So, are you watching uh Israel and Gaza and all the hospital bombing stuff?

So the probably the the single most predictable thing about Israel getting into any kind of military conflict is that whoever they're fighting against will definitely that they bombed a hospital intentionally.

Now, I'm out there and I don't know, is there some military doctrine that suggests that bombing a hospital is a good idea if you're, you know, trying to really conquer a population?

Has anybody ever heard of that?

Why would Israel intentionally bomb a hospital?

Now obviously you know sometimes they say oh it's because beneath the hospital Hamas has some major facility and if we you know we can't leave them forever so we'll just warn the hospital tell them to get out of there and then we'll bomb it.

But does that explain all the hospitals?

Yeah.

So I went to Grock and asked him a few questions because I wondered how big a thing this was.

First of all, uh there's a reported 36 hospitals in Gaza, or that's how many there were at the start of the conflict.

36.

Doesn't that seem like a lot of hospitals for that one little strip of land?

I I feel like I'm having a hard time understanding the size of Gaza because I I keep thinking it's tiny.

Uh but then 36 hospitals that's pretty serious.

Allegedly 31 of the 36 have been damaged or destroyed uh in the conflict.

31 and 36.

But you know damage is big difference between damaged and destroyed.

Um and the World Health Organization says that only 19 of the 36 remain operational which would be better than I thought.

When we see pictures of Gaza, we never see a building that's still standing and functional, right?

The only pictures I see are complete devastation.

So, I'm kind of still impressed that half of the hospitals are still uh in some kind of business.

How do they even have electricity?

I don't It's kind of surprising.

I mean, my sense of what it's like there doesn't line up with there's still 19 hospitals that have electricity and they're functioning.

I mean, albeit with short short on supplies, but h so do you believe that Israel has a military reason to bomb a hospital?

You know, not counting the special cases where they think Hamas is below the hospital.

I don't know.

I I guess I don't have evidence that would suggest that that that makes sense as a any kind of a military strategy, but if somebody tells me, "Oh, yeah, that's a classic military strategy." If it is, then I might change my mind.

But I've never heard that.

Have you?

Let me know if you've heard it.

All right.

Well, certainly certainly they're trying to depopulate Gaza.

That's no uh secret.

Well, according to Breitbart News, uh Trump has implemented his 50% super tariff on India for buying Russian oil.

Now, India's being, you know, kind of tough about this.

And uh but they'll still have to pay the uh the tariffs.

I mean, they're not going to get around it.

So, I wonder if this will work.

Um, it's not going to work right away if it does work.

But if this takes like a big bite out of uh the entire Russian economy, and it might maybe enough that they all notice, I don't know, it's a pretty big deal because India is the number two buyer of energy from Russia.

And if this shuts it down, because it makes it too expensive for India to do it, if that shuts it down, it's going to be a big impact on Russia.

But I don't don't know if it's big enough to make a difference.

But I'll point out that uh Trump is once again monetized a problem.

So now Trump has found a way to uh you know make money from uh selling weapons to Ukraine that will be paid for by Europeans.

And now he's making uh all kinds of tariff revenue uh from India buying Russian oil that they shouldn't be buying.

So he just monetized it.

It the more he monetizes it, the better his negotiating position gets because he's not losing people.

He's making money.

Uh let's uh let's end this tomorrow.

H whatever.

you know, you you guys do what you want to do.

Obviously, Ukraine wants to fight and Russia wants to fight and uh we've tried everything we can do, but now we'll just monetize it.

I don't hate that.

I do not hate that, the monetizing part.

Um, apparently there's a technology that's been spun up already successfully to turn sand into batteries.

So, it's a gigantic container that they fill with sand because sand can hold heat really efficiently.

And in Finland, they uh they just fill this with heat and it just stores it and can somehow somehow they can release it to heat homes.

So, it's a sand battery, but all all it stores is heat.

It doesn't store electricity, but they're working on having it store heat, which they would use a separate technology to turn back into electricity.

So, my suggestion for Gaza is to turn it into a battery.

There's a lot of sand there.

It's very hot.

All right.

Um and according to interesting engineering there's now a new method that some US China team there's a US China scientific team why why is there why is it even legal for our scientists to be working with Chinese scientists?

Is it because we're picking up all these great ideas from the Chinese scientists?

Or is it possible that maybe China is stealing our ideas by working with our US scientists?

I didn't know there were any US China teams, but anyway, they allegedly figured out how to turn plastic into fuel uh at 95% efficiency in the transition.

So they can take this toxic plastic waste and uh at a room temperature process they say they can turn it into a variety of chemicals and fuels.

It's a one-step conversion which means that it might be economical.

Can you imagine that?

If they find a way to turn plastic into energy, that would be cool, wouldn't it?

All right, everybody.

It's a newsy day, but I just ran through it quickly because I know you need to get some more stuff done today.

And uh I hope you uh enjoyed listening to the news and my bad opinions about stuff.

And uh I'll see all the rest of you back here tomorrow, same time, same place.

And locals, my beloved local subscribers, I'm going to see you privately in 30 seconds.

Canteen jugger flask, a vessel of any

kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee. And join me now for the

unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine.

End of the day thing makes everything

better. It's called the simultaneous

sip. It happens now. Go.

Oh, that was really good.

There we go. Wait,

everything's working. Yeah.

Well, did you hear about the Florida man

who uh stopped the burglar

while he was in his Batman pajamas?

Now, what that burglar was doing in that

man's Batman pajamas? I don't know. No,

it wasn't the burglar. It was the man

who stopped him, who had the Batman

pajamas.

And the best part about it is that when

asked uh about the Batman pajamas, he

said it gave me the confidence I needed.

Now, that is a great answer.

I don't know if the man wearing the

Batman pajamas had any kind of, you

know, mental issues, but I hope he was

just a normal person who likes Batman.

And then we got a chance to to go all

Batman on the burglary he did. Uh

because I gave him the confidence he

needed.

Well, I immediately ordered myself some

Batman pajamas because although I

wouldn't wear them every night to bed,

what if you heard a noise downstairs?

Well, I would put on my Batman pajamas

just to go downstairs

because if you're a burglar and you see

the homeowner come down in Batman

pajamas, you know he's going to attack.

You know you you know you've got a fight

coming, so you might as well get out of

the house.

Well, apparently the GDP has been

revised and now it's 3.3, which is

really healthy.

That's a that's a pretty good GDP.

So, good news there. However, Fortune

magazine reports that uh there's a

noticeable drop in traffic at

restaurants and shops and malls. I have

noticed that too. Have you noticed that?

And it makes sense because people are

feeling their their budgets are

constrained. And what is the first thing

you do if your budget is constrained?

You stop eating out. That's like number

one. It's the first thing you stop

doing. And shopping for entertainment.

You definitely wouldn't do that.

So, I feel as though people are really

going to have to try hard to uh reduce

their food budget. And I think

restaurants are going to have a some uh

tough years ahead. That's my guess. Even

if the economy is good. It's just that

food is ridiculous. The cost of food.

Well, the middle-aged according to the

economists, the middle-aged people are

no longer the most unhappy. That has uh

that honor has gone to the young. So,

young people, according to new surveys,

are the least happy.

So, middle-aged people, you're winning.

I would guess that is

50% is economic because they feel like

they can't succeed if they're young. And

about half of that is loneliness and

inability to, you know, hook up with

somebody. So, yeah, I can see it.

There's definitely if you change

people's economic uh situation and their

access to sex, they are going to be the

least happy group. So at least the

middle-aged people could have some, you

know, middle-aged sex

and uh they might have a little bit of

money compared to the young.

Well, RFK Jr. made a bunch of news and

the first part is that uh uh they're

going to add nutrition education to

premed programs across the country. I

don't know if they're making it

mandatory um or if they're just making

it available, but uh you probably know

that doctors will go through medical

school without being trained in

nutrition,

which is just mind-blowing. Not trained

in nutrition. What? But will that work?

Um, in my lifetime, all the science

about nutrition has been fake.

Do we believe? Do you believe that after

300 300,000 years of civilization

where people didn't know much about

nutrition, do you believe that you were

lucky enough to be born in the exact era

that we figured out nutrition?

Well, it certainly didn't happen when I

was young, but did it happen recently?

I thought it happened when I was young.

Do you think that we're going to find

out that absolutely everything we

believe about nutrition is wrong?

Maybe, because we found that out every

other time

in all of human history. We've never

been right about nutrition. But now

we're right. We finally got the right

answer.

I don't know.

So, I think it's probably a good idea to

teach as much as we know, but I'll bet

you a lot of our nutrition science is

still crap.

Well, apparently Bill Gates is going to

discontinue funding something called the

Arabella Group, which uh some big

Democratleaning

organization.

And uh I don't know much about the

Arabella group, but I do know that uh

Democrats their their entire structure,

which we've learned in the past couple

years, is this uh hugely complicated

set of, you know, NOS's and charities

and you know, packs and groups. So, tons

of groups and if you have enough groups

and they're all working together towards

some common goal, such as Democrats

being in charge, um they can hide all

kinds of money

because it's kind of clever that uh you

can give money to a charity knowing that

the charity is then going to give your

money to some kind of, you know,

politician.

So, that's a pretty clever way to hide

your money and what you're doing. It

makes me wonder because I did hear that

Bill Gates has met with Trump a couple

of times.

And it seems to me that Bill Gates would

have lots of things that he really needs

the government to do in order for Bill

Gates to do what he wants to do. In

other words, there might be regulations

that prevent his investments in in

nuclear power. Could be lots of things

he needs the government to do. Do you

believe that Trump would have said,

"Sure, tell me what you need for me and

I'll go do it." Does that sound like

Trump?

Or is Trump the kind who would say, "So,

what is it you need?" Okay. So, if I do

that for you, what are you gonna do for

me? I've got an idea. And he talks to

his staff and they say, "Tell him thath

you'll do what he wants if if uh if he

stops funding the Arabella group."

That might have happened. Now, I have no

information that would suggest it did,

but it's hard for me to imagine that

Gates would go to the White House unless

there was something he needed or wanted,

you know, something specific. And I

can't imagine any scenario in which

Trump would just give it to him as

opposed to saying, you know what,

there's something you could do for me.

Maybe this is it. Or it could be that

this is all part of the big money people

saying the Democrats are broken and

giving money to them just doesn't make

any sense at all. You know, the whole

thing is collapsing. So, it might be

that Gates just thought it was a waste

of money and maybe he was looking for a

way to stop doing it anyway. So, that

maybe agreed to give up something he

wanted to give up anyway. I don't know.

Maybe. I'm just speculating.

All right. Uh, apparently the House

Republicans are moving to create a quote

comprehensive crime bill. Now, if you've

been watching the news and opinion

people, you know that they've been

saying, "Hey, you know, this Washington

DC surge by the feds to uh take on

crime. um that seems to be working. But

what we really need is maybe some kind

of comprehensive crime bill so that u

for example it might fund a bunch of

more cops for cities across America,

something like that. They haven't

figured out what that comprehensive

crime bill would be. It's comprehensive,

so it would be, you know, might

something about cash bail, something

about funding cops, I suppose.

Um, but what I love about this is that I

kept seeing was it uh uh Harold Ford Jr.

who kept saying almost every day on the

five on Fox News uh saying that the

Democrats should try to be proactive and

do something useful about crime instead

of acting like maybe they're in favor of

crime more than they are crime

prevention. and he kept saying, you

know, they should propose a

comprehensive crime bill. Well, it looks

like the Republicans just took that away

from him

by being the ones who are initiating the

crime bill. Now, of course, the

Democrats would have trouble getting

anything approved, but at least it would

look like they were doing something. You

know, they could say, "Well, we don't

agree with this federal takeover of

Washington DC's police, but we are

working on this crime bill. Look how

look how smart we are. If if we were in

power, you'd have this crime bill, and

you'd like it." But no, Republicans are

going to take that completely away from

them. Will a comprehensive crime bill be

popular? probably at least 60%.

I don't know if it's an 8020, but yeah,

I think it'll do fine with the public.

Well, you probably know there was

another shooting yesterday and I wasn't

going to talk about it because the two

topics that I try to avoid

are anything with, you know, individual

crime like a mass shooting and anything

about trans. Those are two topics I

generally try to avoid. It's only

because the trans topic is just

everybody saying the same three things.

There's nothing to add really. And uh

you know the mass shooting things, they

all start to look alike and then you say

all the same things. It's like uh

something about trans and then people

will say something about their hormones.

Elon Musk did. Um he goes uh this is

Elon Musk. Violent crimes per capita by

transidentified individuals is 10 times

higher than the overall population.

Large doses of artificially administered

hormones are driving them to extreme

violence and murder. These extreme

hormone treatments should be withdrawn

by the FDA.

Now the first question is is that per

capita data correct? Is it true that,

you know, if you adjust for how many

there are that the trans people who have

a 10 times higher uh odds of violent

crime?

Um, remember my rule is I don't trust

any crime data. Don't trust any war

data. Don't trust any economic data.

Yeah, maybe, but I I wouldn't

automatically think that that was true.

But anecdotally it looks true.

Anyway, um and I don't know if I don't

know if we've proven that the uh

artificially administered hormones are

part of what's making them do what they

do. Um but it's a popular opinion. A lot

of people are have that same opinion. I

don't know if they're right. So, we're

going to talk about all the same boring

things. uh what's up with trans and you

know gun laws and how to use guns and

why didn't he why didn't his parents

know that this was going to come and

then there's going to be the

conversation about prescribed drugs

because I don't know if he was on any

but the obvious question is were you on

any anti-depression drugs that may also

be implicated in causing people to be

violent and then it was a Christian

school so We'll talk about Christianity

being under attack.

There there's nothing I can add to that,

right? The the entire conversation is so

scripted in advance that there's just

nothing to add. Yeah. Everybody's going

to say one of the, you know, eight

things that people say about this sort

of thing, which unfortunately happens

somewhat regularly.

Um, so you don't need me to say all the

usual stuff,

but um there is a new bluntness

happening. I don't know if you've

noticed, but there's a as wokeness is is

trying to be uh put back in a box.

People are being a lot more blunt about

uh race and trans and everything else.

Um, Robbie Starbucks was recently asked

in an interview, "Aren't there some

people who genuinely believe that they

were born in the wrong body?"

And Robbie says, "Yes, but there's also

schizophrenic people who believe they're

Batman." H, there's Batman again. And

think they can fly off the Empire State

Building. Pretending their delusion is

true makes you evil, not virtuous.

Um,

yeah. And then uh Robbie on a expost

says, "Today is a good day to remind

people that there's nothing kind or

virtuous about validating a delusion

that leads to a dangerous mental

spiral."

Now,

am I wrong to say that you couldn't

really say that in public just a few

years ago?

Now, you know, I I have a lot of empathy

for people who are in that trans

situation. Whatever they're going

through, it sounds tough. So, you know,

I I feel like uh empathy is perfectly

appropriate.

But I do agree with the idea that we are

not obligated to join somebody's um

preferred view of reality.

the the whole idea that you can, you

know, transition is a view of reality

and you're not really obligated to join

it and you're not really obligated to

make happy talk as if you do agree with

it or you or you do enter that version

of reality.

And I'm not going to make an opinion of

who's right or who's wrong in this case.

I'm just going to say you're not really

obligated to join somebody's reality. If

you're sure that it's just an imaginary

structure in their head, you are not

obligated.

Well, you know, I've uh talked quite a

bit before about trying to create a uh

an agent uh that would look like me,

like a clone of me, and would survive me

and, you know, go on forever as my AI

version of me. Well, apparently that's a

growing industry. They're called

deadbots, AI dead bots. And a deadbot

would be a bot or an agent or an AI

entity that uh represents somebody who's

passed away.

And apparently this is like a real thing

now and they're, you know, their

companies getting into it and managing

your digital assets and stuff like that.

So the the digital life the digital

afterlife industry,

it's an actual thing. um is expected to

be like a really big industry. H

um I'm not aware of any company that can

do this. I know there are a lot of

companies that can do parts of it. There

are companies that can make something

that looks and talks just like you, but

I don't believe there's any company that

can make something that that looks and

talks like you and doesn't hallucinate.

And I don't think that you could even

make one with offtheshelf apps anyway

that would even, you know, reliably look

at a file you provided for some facts

you wanted to get right all the time. I

don't think the technology is there. So

I don't know if this uh industry will

really take off unless people are happy

looking at their dead loved ones saying,

you know, crap that never happened in

the real world. I mean, that would be

weird.

Well, apparently the I think the White

House was asking Nvidia for a share of

the revenue of chips that the White

House would allow them to sell to China,

which would not be their best ones

because that would be too dangerous to

let China have their best AI chips. But,

uh, Nvidia is putting up a fight and I

guess they they're saying that, uh,

they'll they'll fight any, uh,

government action to try to get a

revenue share.

So,

this is one of those cases where the

government can blackmail a company, but

I don't think it's like some other cases

where the government is just being

helpful and get something in return, you

know, like keeping them from becoming

bankrupt in something, they get

something in return. I I feel like it's

different if you just say, "Oh, well,

I'm the only one that can approve this,

but all they're doing is approving

something."

Do you get 15% of revenue for just that

particular kind of business? uh just cuz

you approved it when approving it is

your job

cuz the government it's their job to

approve things or disapprove things

right so if they just do their job of

approving a thing why would they get 15%

revenue so I could see why Nvidia would

fight that

I'll bet they can afford some really

good lawyers

So, how many of you have had the

following experience? You mentioned

something. You were having a

conversation and you said something

about I don't know, I'll just make

something up. bonsai trees

and then you then you see that all your

advertisements and all your devices have

turned to you know are you interested in

a bonsai tree and you say to yourself ah

my technology is listening to me and

it's modified the algorithm because it

knows I want a bonsai tree now you've

all had that experience right probably

every one of you you've had that

experience well there's another

experience I want to see if any of you

have had. How many of you have had the

experience where you were thinking

really hard about a thing, but you never

wrote it down and you never once even

whispered it out loud

and then your social media delivers

something on that exact topic?

Have you had that weird experience yet?

Let me tell you mine.

Uh, so yesterday I was craving a certain

food from a certain restaurant and I was

thinking to myself, you know what? One

of the things I love about this

restaurant is that they deliver their

food in these nice uh plastic hard

plastic containers.

And so I don't like it when it comes in

cardboard or something, you know, some

kind of paper product because I feel

like the food and the paper have merged

by the time you get it. you, you know,

you're reading paper.

But the hard plastic ones to me that

seemed like a safe bet. So all day long,

I was thinking, God, I can't wait for

dinner. And this is unusual for me. I

usually don't have, you know, dinner

cravings. And I'm thinking, I can't wait

to get that that food that uh was so

delicious before. I've got to get it.

And then I go on social media and

there's a video from some American

doctor saying that the most dangerous

thing you could ever do is eat something

in a a a black plastic container.

Specifically, a black plastic container.

That's literally what I was think like

craving all day long is a thing coming

in a black plastic container. And

apparently it's pretty bad. Uh, black

plastic is made from recycled

electronics

such as old televisions, computers, and

other electronic waste. So, allegedly,

the black plastic contains flame

retardant chemicals. Uh, there just all

kinds of chemicals, and you're eating

it. Now, how many of you have had that

experience where the news serves up

exactly

exactly what you were thinking and it

wasn't even like a normal thing you're

thinking? Like, how much time have you

ever spent thinking about the

awesomeness of black plastic food

containers? I actually did that

yesterday. I actually almost posted that

if if your food comes in a a black

plastic container, you you know that

you'd be happier if you got Door Dash.

I I can't believe that that exact thing

came into my feed at that exact time.

So, if we live in a simulation, the way

you steer it is by what you're thinking

about the most. One of my theories about

why affirmations work,

which is just, you know, speculative, is

that uh reality is not what you think.

You know, it's more of a simulation. And

the way that you can uh change the

simulation is by what you're thinking

about in the most dedicated way. Maybe

just thinking about those damn plastic

containers changed reality until

something was presented to me on that

topic.

Maybe.

So, that's all part of why affirmations

might work. Maybe.

Well, here's another one. Um, according

to Canadian Affairs, I guess that's the

publication. Um, there's a senator in

Canada who wants alcohol to have warning

labels on it because, as the headline

says, alcohol is poison.

So, Canada might label alcohol as

poison.

He may be not using that word, but

that's the uh the sense of the story

about it is that alcohol is poison. Now,

if you're new to me, you don't know that

I've been saying for quite a number of

years, alcohol is poison. It's a refrain

that helped a lot of people quit

drinking. They just have to hear those

words, alcohol is poison. And it's based

on the idea that human brains are really

like AI and we're just programmed by the

words that are most frequently repeated

in our heads. So if you say, "Hm,

alcohol is a beverage. I sure would like

to have a beverage." You're going to do

a lot more beverage drinking than you're

going to be doing poison drinking. So,

if it seems like, well, that couldn't

possibly work cuz all you did is call it

a name, say everybody knows what alcohol

is. The fact that you're calling it a

poison,

how's that going to help me stop

drinking? And the answer is because

that's all it takes. The word that you

most associate with it will reprogram

you. So, if every time you think of it

or someone offers it to you, you say,

"No thanks. Alcohol is poison."

Most of you, not all of you, but most of

you that would be enough to never have

another drink again.

It works because I hear all the time

from people who used it successfully.

You'll probably see a few in the

comments.

Um, and apparently Gen Z, as you know,

is uh not drinking nearly as much, but

that as in past generations, but uh

that's also worldwide. So, Germany is

having a problem because, you know, they

got a big beer industry there and the

young people are turning away from beer

and alcohol in general. Sure enough, now

only 38% of men in Germany under 25

drink at least once a week.

Um, it used to be 55% a generation

earlier and it was 85% in the mid70s.

In the mid70s in Germany, 85%

of the population had a drink

at least once a week. 85%.

And now that's down to 38% with men

under 25. That's a that's a big change.

Wow.

Um, if you're worried about AI

um affecting your privacy, well, I got a

story for you.

A fairly open AI says it scans user

conversations with its AI and uh can

report some of them to the police.

according to an article in futurism.

Now, the things they would report would

be the obvious things like if somebody

um was asking how to end their own life,

they might report that so the person

could get help. or if they were saying

something like, you know, how to hurt

people or, I don't know, make a nuclear

bomb or create a poison or something

like that that uh, you know, obviously

is subjective.

But if uh, AI spots that sort of thing,

it surfaces it to some humans and the

humans decide whether or not that should

be turned over to law enforcement.

to which I say that would really mean

the AI is listening to everything you

say and is using a filter to judge

whether you should be getting a contact

from law enforcement.

um that would really change the things I

I'm willing to use AI for because I

always thought one of the great

advantages of AI is that it wouldn't be

censored in any way and that I could ask

all of those band questions. That

doesn't mean I'm gonna do something.

But sometimes you're just curious, you

know, you're just curious about a domain

that, you know, would be very bad if you

were to take that action, but sometimes

you just wonder about it. And that I

guess you'll get turned into the police

if you wonder about the wrong things

while you're in the presence of the AI.

And it might not even be something that

you asked the AI. It might be just

something you heard.

You know, if you add it in voice mode

accidentally and you and you said

something on another topic to another

person, it could just overhear it and

then next thing you know, knock knock.

So that's pretty creepy.

I'm not sure they should not do that.

I mean, I I don't know how to I don't

know how to judge that one.

Well, as you know, uh, Trump fired Lisa

Cook, one of the Fed governors, because

she's accused quite credibly, and I

don't believe she's denied it, that she

did some, uh, mortgage fraud when she

was a little bit younger. And, uh, she

claimed two homes as her primary

residence to get better rates, I guess,

and that's illegal. So, she's fired, but

I think she's going to fight it in

court. Um, and uh I saw a post by Eric

Dohy talking about how the experts were

imagining that if he fired one of the

Fed governors, it would cause all kinds

of chaos in the market and that'd be bad

for investors. Well, the stock market

went up.

Now, it didn't go up because of that. I

think it went up because there's a

recognition that her job is completely

unimportant.

Now, I could be totally wrong about

that,

but like I said yesterday when I was

joking about it, what exactly does a Fed

governor do? And if suddenly one of them

stopped doing it, do you think you'd

even notice?

We don't even know what they do. It's

hard for me to get worried that there

might be one less of them.

Oh no, we might have one fewer Fed

governor than we had before. Well, that

will certainly change

what? Anything.

So, I guess the markets were smart. The

the funniest thing I I'm I'm starting to

think

is to imagine that the public will uh

get really active and worked up about

anything. I don't think that's a thing.

I think the only thing that anybody gets

worked up about uh or artificial where

there's somebody funding, you know, a

protest, but if nobody's funding a

protest,

things like this just don't happen. You

know, things like people going, "Oh, no,

he's firing a Fed governor. I'll have to

remove all my stock investments." It

just doesn't happen. In the real world,

people just look at the news and shrug.

They just go on with their lives. I I

think only in the social media world do

you imagine that this is going to cause

some big reaction with the public. And

not really. It's just one of a million

things I had to process today.

Well, Trump uh quite cleverly, the

administration is looking to take over

Washington DC's DC Union Station. You

know, where you grab a train, I guess.

Um New York Post is talking about this

and

it used to be, you know, sort of the

jewel of DC, people say, but now it's

too dangerous. And uh if they take it

over, I guess they can, you know, remove

all the danger. Um I think people are

going to love that, don't you? So I

would say it's, you know, another home

run by the Trump administration, simply

identifying something that you're

guaranteed to get people on your your

side. How would you like it if we made

that place that you all go to on a

regular basis? How about if we made it

safe? Yes, please. Yes. How about yes?

Um, even the mayor of DC

is uh I won't say she's proTrump, but

she thanked him for surging uh all this

resources into her city and reducing

crime. So, you know, there was some

question. At first, she seemed positive

about it and then she seemed negative

about it. Now, she's back to some

version of positive about it. Um, I feel

like probably she's she's wrestling with

the fact that she knows she wants it and

she knows it's good. You know, the

federal surging of law enforcement and

uh but the Democrats are probably

pestering her saying, "You can't say

that. Whatever you do, don't say it

worked. Don't." And then she's thinking,

you know, I'm just speculating. I don't

know. Then I imagine her thinking, "Uh,

everybody knows this worked.

Everybody knows it worked. And you're

asking me to go in public and say, "Oh,

this is a terrible mistake. We like the

crime." I'm not going to do that.

So, I have a I if that's what happened,

and it feels like that's what happened.

I don't know if if she's just rebelling

against the stupidity of claiming

something obvious didn't happen. Well, I

like it. So, good for you if that's

what's happening.

Well, uh, we're hearing a little bit

more about John Bolton. As you know, his

house got raided and he was accused of

doing some bad things with classified

information. But now we hear that the

reason that we know this information was

classified and that he was involved is

that he used a uh unclassified email

system to send some of it to someone

close to him and apparently he was

hacked or it was detected by a foreign

country

um a hostile foreign country and I guess

we were hacking the hostile foreign

country. So, somebody was watching John

Bolton's email, but but somebody else on

our team, maybe in another country, was

uh monitoring the people who were

monitoring him somehow. And so now we

know that uh the information was

at least seen by a hostile foreign

country. This is reported in the New

York Times, which doesn't make it true,

but you know, it's a big media entity.

So, here's my question. Isn't the person

who leaked this story to the New York

Times just as bad as Bolton?

I can't believe that there's a leak

about the leaker because the New York

Times should not know that there was a

hostile foreign country. that is the is

the reason that we know about this. They

shouldn't know that, right?

So, whoever leaked the story about the

leaker is as bad as a leaker. I mean,

either way, it's pretty bad.

Well, here's something I thought I would

never see. Uh Trump is turning on George

and Alex Soros.

Um, I'm going to just read what he said

in True Social, but I didn't expect

this. So, Trump says this. He goes,

"George Soros and his wonderful radical

left son should be charged with RICO

because of their support of violent

protests and much more all throughout

the United States. We're not going to

allow these lunatics to rip apart

America anymore. Never giving it so much

as a chance to breathe and be free."

Soros and his group of psychopaths have

caused great damage to our country. That

includes his crazy West Coast friends.

Be careful. We're watching you. Thank

you for your attention to this matter.

he always says.

Um

so related to that, the Gateway Pundit

is reporting that uh Representative uh

Luna

um had demanded earlier this year that

Congress subpoena

uh the Soros organization

and uh the probe was around whether the

agency

um had done something to expedite his

acquisition of a whole bunch of radio

stations, 220 radio stations.

So, you know, somebody like Soros is

always going to be uh suspect. Well,

what do you imagine they would discover

if they started indicting um Soros?

What would happen if through legal means

the government got access to all these

Soros organization emails

for the past, I don't know, seven years

or something? What kind of things would

they find out?

And would there be crimes involved?

So, I don't know that there's really a

RICO.

Um it it does seem organized but it

seems organized in sort of a common

political billionaire way. He can give

money to anybody he wants. And if those

people have decided to give that money

that he gave them to somebody specific

and he knew about it, is that a crime?

Maybe you don't like it, but is that a

crime? So I guess I would have to hear

what crime they think he's done. Um, but

I do think that uh having George Soros

have that much control over the country

is obviously bad. So the fact that uh

Trump is pushing back on it all seems

good to me. I just don't know if he has

any levers for that. We'll find out.

Well, did you know that that Fed

governor Lisa Cook, the one that got

fired, and Leticia James and Hunter

Biden, did you know they're all using

the same lawyer? at the moment. It

doesn't mean anything. Just a

coincidence. But it does make me wonder,

h

Fed Governor Leticia James and Hunter

Biden,

is it possible that there is one

billionaire who's funding the lawyer and

trying to protect, you know, all good

Democrats? And is it possible that

that's why they all have the same

lawyer? Because there's one lawyer who

works with one billionaire and the

billionaire says, "All right, we can't

have Trump, you know, abusing all of our

fine Democrats. So, you're going to be

their lawyer. I'll pay you." Maybe

there's a new drug coming out of China

via the cartels the usual way that is

way stronger than fentinyl and you can't

stop it with Narcan. So it would be

therefore way more dangerous than

fentinyl. It's already here, so it's not

hypothetical.

And it sounds like the Chinese producers

just keep finding ways to keep doing

something like fentinel or worse.

Um, and they're just going to keep doing

it. So there there's nothing we could do

legally. They'll just say, "Well, if

that's illegal, what about this?" So

it's called uh nazines.

N I t a z nazines.

And they're not even included in routine

drug tests. So if you did a drug test

and a person is too new, it wouldn't

even show up.

So

um that's bad.

Well, Governor Nuomo is ratcheting up

his rhetoric and he said at some

political event, he said, "I'm

absolutely convinced that there won't be

an election in 2028." And what he means

is that

uh he believes that Trump will not leave

office and he's getting really animated

about it. And by animated I mean jazz

hands. That will never be.

We'll never see an election in 20 28.

Jazz hands. Anyway, um I feel like that

has now crossed over into dangerous

rhetoric

because, you know, it does seem to me

that the Democrats got the memo to stop

saying Hitler, Hitler, Hitler,

but they're just changing the words.

They're not changing the the message

that the Republicans are like a mortal

danger to, you know, the republic. And

this I am absolutely convinced there

won't be an election in 2028. Just look

at what he's doing. Look at what he's

doing.

That's pretty dangerous stuff, Nuome.

And

uh I really have a problem with the

Democrats rhetoric

that gets people into a dangerous

headset. And this is definitely it. I

mean,

when he talks like that, it guarantees

that if you're a Trump supporter, you

can't be invited to the neighborhood,

you know, block party. It just

guarantees it because nobody wants you

on, you know, to socialize with you if

you're going to be supporting what

Newsome says is this terrible dictator

who's going to ruin our democracy.

So,

it's a kind of rhetoric that just

destroys the country. I I don't know

that is there a Republican version of

this.

You know, we we do talk about if Mum

Dami gets in, he's he's going to ruin

New York City. But does that sound like

a cult of violence?

It doesn't, does it? It's more like a

oh, this is going to be economically

devastating. Could be really bad. But

when you say that he's not going to

leave the office and you guarantee it,

like you're not even talking

speculatively, you're just guaranteeing

it. He will not leave office and

therefore you'll try to become a

dictator. That feels like a call to

violence,

doesn't it?

You know, I don't recommend any

violence, but it feels like it.

Well, according to Newsmax, the there's

a government uh oversight committee

that's going to look at Wikipedia and

check it for bias.

Uh do you think they'll find any? Uh so

James Comr, Republican and and

Representative Nancy Mace are working on

that. Of course there's bias.

Of course there is. There is really any

doubt about that. So, I don't know what

they're going to do about it. Um, and I

guess they're worried also that some of

the bias might be coming from foreign

entities pretending to be editors.

So, we'll see.

Well, apparently the DNC, the Democratic

National Committee, uh, they've got

their annual meeting and they were

meeting in Minnesota and, uh, Victor

Davis Hansen is writing about this. I

saw it in the postmillennial.

Um, so they've been addressing their

policy platform and what do you think

that they decided to do now that their

existing platform the one that they had

been pushing uh once they realized that

that completely destroyed the Democrat

party

um so obviously when they meet they said

oh we can't do any of this again because

it destroyed our entire party. So is

that what happened? Did they meet and

say, "We've got to really change

everything because we really just

destroyed everything that we hold dear."

Nope. They doubled down.

Yep. They doubled down.

Uh apparently uh Attorney General Keith

Ellison got big applause when he said,

"Uh, we are not going to scapegoat our

transgender community." And there Bill

Owen of Tennessee is going hard at DEI

in a in a good way. He said DEI is the

very foundation of the Christian church.

Really? DEI is the foundation of the

Christian church.

I don't remember the sermon on the mount

where Jesus said, "Whatever you do,

don't hire those white guys."

But did I miss that that page in the

Bible?

the part where discriminating against

white men was highly recommended.

No, I don't believe DEI is the basis of

Christianity. No, thank you.

Anyway, uh it appears that Democrats

have learned exactly nothing.

Not a thing.

I I feel like the problem is that you

can only be an honest Democrat if

there's no other Democrat in the room

with you. Like if you're just writing on

your blog, you can say, "Oh, these

Democrats need to try harder." You know,

I'm a Democrat. We need to try harder.

But you can't do it if there's a crowd

in front of you because there'd be too

many people in the crowd who would turn

on you. You just couldn't do it. You'd

get booed.

So,

they don't have a chance. Um, apparently

some activist judge in Utah is ordering

the state to redraw the congressional

map that would take one away from the

GOP.

So, it's sort of a technical argument

about, you know, who can do what with

redistricting, but uh looks like the

order will take one away from the GOP.

So the uh GOP majority in the House is

looks like it's going to go down by one

and it's already razor thin. That might

that might make a difference.

All right. Well, uh as I mentioned, RFK

Jr. is saying, I guess he said on an

interview today, that uh they're getting

very close to revealing the true causes

of autism. Now, I don't know if they're

going to claim they found all the true

causes. I I don't know if that's the

claim. Uh might be weaker than that.

We'll see. And uh that there will be

regular regulatory action about those

causes of autism. And uh this is what

RFK said. He Junior said he said this is

a crisis. Uh there is not a single

cause. So if you thought he was going to

say, oh, it's those childhood

vaccinations, probably not because he

says it's not a single cause. He says

there are many uh aggregation of causes.

We're now developing sufficient evidence

to ask for regulatory action on some of

those or recommendations.

So we're really going to find out

something radical and interesting. I

assume

that the reason he has some certainty

about some things but not others is that

there's data that looks credible about

some of this stuff. So what do you

think? How much of it do you think will

be vaccinations and how much of it do

you think will be diet and how much of

it will be pollutants?

I don't know.

I I don't think you could uh make a good

guess on this at all. It could really be

a surprise. It really could. So, we'll

see.

Um and apparently there's other drama at

the CDC. So, the director, Susan

Monarez, uh has been ousted by RFK Jr.

um because she was pushing for the COVID

vaccine.

Now, I don't understand that story

because my understanding is that

Secretary Kennedy has okayed

more of the COVID vaccine.

So, I'm trying to I'm trying to fit

these two stories together because they

appear to be opposites. So, I don't know

which what is true. I do think it's true

that the director is ousted. Um, I do

think it's true that she was procoid

vaccines, but let me tell you what uh

Kennedy posted about his own

accomplishments. All right, so this is

part of the same story.

So Kennedy told us that he promised us

four things. Uh, one to end COVID

vaccine mandates. Now ending the

mandate.

I didn't even know there was a mandate.

Did you? What mandate? Was there a

mandate for school children?

Still, I wasn't even aware there was a

mandate, so I don't even know what he's

talking about. But he said he would end

COVID vaccine mandates, and apparently

he has. Um, he said he would keep

vaccines available to people who want

them, especially the vulnerable. Now, if

he's keeping the vaccines available to

people who want them, wouldn't that

suggest that he does not have definitive

data that they're dangerous

to um some part of the population? I

guess

how in the world is that possible

that he doesn't have data that would

suggest he should cancel the co

vaccines?

Do you think it's coming or that he's

still studying it or do you believe that

the data on all things CO is unreliable?

Because that's where I've been for a

long time. Yeah. I don't know if you

could say they're safe or not safe. The

only thing you could say for sure is I

wouldn't trust any of the data. No

matter which way it pointed, I wouldn't

trust any of it. No matter what it said.

So, I'm a little confused

on that. Um

and he said that he would uh demand

placeboc control trials from companies

um which apparently he has. Now that

doesn't mean that there are no things

that had placeboc controlled trials

already. There were things so apparently

he likes those things. But I will be the

uh if you don't know this, those

randomized controlled placebo trials,

that doesn't mean it's true, you know

that, right? Because the way you can

fake those is by what data you decide is

good enough to be in your study. So

there there's always this filter where

you go, well, you know, the first two

weeks of the data, uh, we collected a

little bit differently, so why don't we

take that out? Yeah, we we'll just take

out the first two weeks and then

suddenly the data, you know, points in

the opposite direction.

So there are ways that even the finest

of controlled trials could be completely

fraudulent. That that's a real thing

that happens.

And he said he promised to end the

emergency. What was the emergency? I

guess it was an emergency

classification that allowed them to do

the vaccine mandates. So he got rid of

that. So, I don't know what mandates

there were. Un unless he's talking about

school children. That is that the only

one or were there some mandates for

maybe government people? Maybe the

military. I don't think there were any.

There were no mandates for the military

still. Were there? Or maybe he's taking

credit for getting rid of them. Um, but

the FDA has now issued marketing

authorization

for the COVID shots for those who are at

higher risk.

So,

how do you how do you square in your

mind that RFK Jr. is the most famous

vaccine skeptic we know? Not just the

COVID shots, but vaccine skeptic in

general. He's the most famous vaccine

skeptic

and he's in charge of looking at all the

data and deciding if the COVID vaccine

is too dangerous to justify whatever

benefits you might get from it, if any.

And at this point, he does not seem

poised to ban it. Does that mean that he

hasn't finished looking at it? Or does

that mean that he looked at it and he's

satisfied that the data is sufficiently

good

that it's useful for some classes of

people who are higher risk?

Wouldn't that wouldn't that blow your

mind?

It looks like

it looks like he must think the data

suggests that it's better to take it

than not take it for some categories of

people. Now, he does he does say that

you should only do it, you know, if

you're if you've your doctor says to do

it. So, he's not saying that you should

just go to the drugstore and get it. I I

feel like he's saying, but only if your

doctor says you should get it. So, it's

some acknowledgment that there's an

extra risk involved, but maybe there's

some category of people he believes the

data supports getting it. I don't know.

Um, apparently in Michigan

there were teachers who were required to

take a test to grade their levels of

whiteness. Wall Street Apes was talking

about this on X. So there was a public

school teacher who had been there for 31

years and she quit because she was

unwilling to stand in a circle to rate

her level of whiteness.

Um, and I guess the problem was that the

black students were struggling in their

schools. And so they wanted to figure

out how their whiteness was affecting

that.

Um, and the things that they thought

would uh affect their level of whiteness

was uh how many people they referred for

discipline and you know whether or not

that was a balanced number. And uh she

said she had a higher percentage of uh

black students that were referred for

discipline. So that made her more white.

And uh

let's see. and also the lateness.

So if if she marked the black kids late,

uh that would be extra whiteness.

And she said, uh I was told to decrease

the number of detentions that were

issued for a certain race, obviously

black. They showed up late because

culturally it's acceptable for them.

Now, isn't that the racist thing?

Imagine being in a training class where

the class is told that black people

are allowed to be late because it's

culturally acceptable to them. Isn't

that racist? Or do I not know what

racist is? I mean, the point of saying

that they're they're more likely to be

late because they're black. That's

racist, right? Am I am I hallucinating

now? Like, this is just crazy. Anyway,

um,

so I don't know what that story is

about. Probably was interesting at one

point. So, are you watching uh Israel

and Gaza and all the hospital bombing

stuff?

So

the probably the the single most

predictable thing about Israel getting

into any kind of military conflict is

that whoever they're fighting against

will definitely that they bombed a

hospital intentionally.

Now, I'm out there and I don't know, is

there some military doctrine

that suggests that bombing a hospital is

a good idea

if you're, you know, trying to really

conquer a population?

Has anybody ever heard of that?

Why would Israel intentionally bomb a

hospital?

Now obviously you know sometimes they

say oh it's because beneath the hospital

Hamas has some major facility and if we

you know we can't leave them forever so

we'll just warn the hospital tell them

to get out of there and then we'll bomb

it. But does that explain all the

hospitals?

Yeah. So I went to Grock and asked him a

few questions because I wondered how big

a thing this was. First of all, uh

there's a reported 36 hospitals in Gaza,

or that's how many there were at the

start of the conflict. 36. Doesn't that

seem like a lot of hospitals for that

one little strip of land? I I feel like

I'm having a hard time understanding the

size of Gaza because I I keep thinking

it's tiny.

Uh but then 36 hospitals that's pretty

serious.

Allegedly 31 of the 36 have been damaged

or destroyed

uh in the conflict. 31 and 36. But you

know damage is big difference between

damaged and destroyed.

Um and the World Health Organization

says that only 19 of the 36 remain

operational

which would be better than I thought.

When we see pictures of Gaza, we never

see a building that's still standing and

functional, right? The only pictures I

see are complete devastation. So, I'm

kind of still impressed that half of the

hospitals are still uh in some kind of

business. How do they even have

electricity? I don't

It's kind of surprising. I mean, my

sense of what it's like there doesn't

line up with there's still 19 hospitals

that have electricity and they're

functioning. I mean, albeit with short

short on supplies, but h

so do you believe that Israel has a

military reason to bomb a hospital? You

know, not counting the special cases

where they think Hamas is below the

hospital. I don't know.

I I guess I don't have evidence that

would suggest that that that makes sense

as a any kind of a military strategy,

but if somebody tells me, "Oh, yeah,

that's a classic military strategy." If

it is, then I might change my mind. But

I've never heard that. Have you? Let me

know if you've heard it.

All right. Well, certainly certainly

they're trying to depopulate Gaza.

That's no uh secret.

Well, according to Breitbart News, uh

Trump has implemented his 50% super

tariff on India for buying Russian oil.

Now, India's being, you know, kind of

tough about this. And uh but they'll

still have to pay the uh the tariffs. I

mean, they're not going to get around

it. So, I wonder if this will work.

Um, it's not going to work right away if

it does work. But if this takes like a

big bite out of uh the entire Russian

economy, and it might maybe enough that

they all notice, I don't know, it's a

pretty big deal because India is the

number two buyer of energy from Russia.

And if this shuts it down, because it

makes it too expensive for India to do

it, if that shuts it down, it's going to

be a big impact on Russia. But I don't

don't know if it's big enough to make a

difference. But I'll point out that uh

Trump is once again monetized

a problem.

So now Trump has found a way to uh you

know make money from uh selling weapons

to Ukraine that will be paid for by

Europeans.

And now he's making uh all kinds of

tariff revenue

uh from India buying Russian oil that

they shouldn't be buying.

So he just monetized it.

It the more he monetizes it, the better

his negotiating position gets because

he's not losing people. He's making

money. Uh let's uh let's end this

tomorrow. H whatever. you know, you you

guys do what you want to do. Obviously,

Ukraine wants to fight and Russia wants

to fight and uh we've tried everything

we can do, but now we'll just monetize

it. I don't hate that. I do not hate

that,

the monetizing part.

Um, apparently there's a technology

that's been spun up already successfully

to turn sand into batteries.

So, it's a gigantic container that they

fill with sand because sand can hold

heat really efficiently. And in Finland,

they uh they just fill this with heat

and it just stores it and can somehow

somehow they can release it to heat

homes. So, it's a sand battery, but all

all it stores is heat. It doesn't store

electricity, but they're working on

having it store heat, which they would

use a separate technology to turn back

into electricity.

So, my suggestion for Gaza is to turn it

into a battery.

There's a lot of sand there. It's very

hot.

All right.

Um and according to interesting

engineering there's now a new method

that some US China team there's a US

China scientific team

why why is there why is it even legal

for our scientists to be working with

Chinese scientists?

Is it because we're picking up all these

great ideas from the Chinese scientists?

Or is it possible that maybe China is

stealing our ideas by working with our

US scientists? I didn't know there were

any US China teams, but anyway, they

allegedly figured out how to turn

plastic into fuel uh at 95% efficiency

in the transition. So they can take this

toxic plastic waste and uh at a room

temperature process

they say they can turn it into a variety

of chemicals and fuels. It's a one-step

conversion which means that it might be

economical. Can you imagine that? If

they find a way to turn plastic into

energy,

that would be cool,

wouldn't it?

All right, everybody. It's a newsy day,

but I just ran through it quickly

because I know you need to get some more

stuff done today.

And uh I hope you uh enjoyed listening

to the news and my bad opinions about

stuff. And uh I'll see all the rest of

you back here tomorrow, same time, same

place. And locals, my beloved local

subscribers,

I'm going to see you privately in 30

seconds.